Madras High Court

Ahamed Jalaluddin vs Kuppammal @ Muthu Meera Nachi ... on 4 August, 2021

                                                                             S.A.No.1006 of 2000

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 04.08.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                              S.A.No.1006 of 2000



                   Ahamed Jalaluddin              ... Appellant / Respondent / Plaintiff

                                                    -Vs-


                   1.Kuppammal @ Muthu Meera Nachi (Died)
                   2.K.Alithambu
                   3.Nabisha
                   4.Akbhar
                   5.Kyran Jamalia
                   6.Kathoon Bibi
                   7.Jalima
                   8.Seenippeer
                   (R2 to R8 are brought on record as Lrs of the
                     deceased sole respondent vide order dated 11.11.2011)
                                                  ... Respondent / Appellant / Plaintiff
                   PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
                   Code, against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge,
                   Ramanathapuram in A.S.No.74 of 1998, dated 01.12.1999 in reversing the
                   well considered judgment and decree of the Court of Additional District
                   Munsif, Ramanathapuram in O.S.No.366 of 1991, dated 13.02.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                   1/9
                                                                                  S.A.No.1006 of 2000



                                            For Appellant       : Mr.S.Ramesh
                                            For R1              : Died
                                            For R2 to R7        : set exparte
                                            For R8              : Mr.A.Arumugam
                                                                  for Mr.C.Christopher


                                                       JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.366 of 1991 on the file of the Additional

District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, is the appellant in this second

appeal. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent

injunction. The suit was decreed by the learned trial munsif vide judgment

and decree dated 13.02.1998. Questioning the same, the defendant filed

A.S.No.74 of 1998 before the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

By judgment and decree dated 01.12.1999, the appeal was allowed and the

decision of the trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed.

Questioning the same, the second appeal came to be filed. The second

appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

1.Whether the lower appellate Court had not erred ignoring the

deletion of the property in Ex.A.33 and E.x.A.34?

2.Whether the lower appellate Court had not erred in

considering a document which had been set aside in later

proceedings?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1006 of 2000

3.Whether the lower appellate had not rendered a perverse

finding in holding as if Ex.A5 is final?

4.Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that

the suit property was that of Kuppammal when the records under

Ex.B2 is a self serving document and the plaintiff is not a party to the

same?

5.Whether the the lower appellate Court was right in ignoring

Ex.A.33 and Ex.A.34 when they are ancient documents and more so,

when they are in the custody of the Court?

6.Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not

contrary to the judgment of the High Court rendered in 71 C.W.N.362

and AIR Madras 486?

7. Whether the lower appellate Court had not erred in ignoring

that the auction purchaser had sold the property under Ex.A4 in two

items as early as 1938 and the possession thereof had been

substantiated by Ex.A19 to Ex.A30?

8.Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not

liable to be set aside in such other substantial question of law as this

Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper to frame?.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the

contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1006 of 2000

Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant

and restore the decision of the trial Court.

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents

submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the

evidence on record.

5. The case of the appellant / plaintiff is that his mother Jeenath Beevi

settled the suit property in his favour under Ex.A1, dated 25.04.1991.

In turn, Jeenath Beevi traced his title under Ex.A2-sale deed dated

20.03.1990 executed by one Shahul Hameed. Shahul Hameed had

purchased the suit property under Ex.A4-sale deed dated 04.08.1934

executed by one Raja Asari. Raja Asari traced his title under Ex.A5 and

Ex.A6 (Sale certificate and certificate of delivery of possession issued by

the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram). According to the plaintiff,

the defendant was having the property on the north of the suit property and

that since the defendant was staking a rival claim, the plaintiff was

constrained to file a instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1006 of 2000

6. The defendant filed her written statement controverting the plaint

averments. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, while his mother's

vendor Shahul Hameed was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A34 were

marked. The husband of the defendant was examined himself as D.W.1 and

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. An advocate commissioner was appointed

and his additional report, sketches and plans were marked as Court Exs.1 to

Ex.4. After a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court had

decreed the suit which was reversed by the first appellate Court. The only

question that arises for my consideration is whether the judgment of the

first appellate Court deserves to be interfered with. The four boundaries set

out in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 is as under:-

Ex-A1-Settlement Deed

Jeenath Beevi seetlement to Ahamed Jalaludeen Plaintiff

25.04.1991 N

W E S Seeni Mohammed, Kuppammal,

Mohammed Mustafa

Alla Pitchai Abdul Gaboorkhan

06 cents Punjai

Haja Mohaideen https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1006 of 2000

Ex-A2-Sale Deed

Shahul Ahamed Sale deed to Jeenath Beevi 20.03.1990

N

W E S

Seeni Mohammed, Kuppammal,

Muhammed Mustafa

Alla Pitchai Abdul Kaboor

06 cents Punjai

Haja Mohaideen

Ex-A4-Sale Deed

Raja Asai sale deed to Shahul Ahamed 04.08.1934 N

W E S Kuppammal Kollai Land

Thangammal

Kollai land 06 cents Syed Adamana Kollai

Subbu, Meera Land https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1006 of 2000

Ex-A5-Sale Deed

Purchased by Raja Asai in Court Auction N

W E S

Thangammal Kollai land & Kuppammal Veetu Kollai

Between the South North

Running Road 06 cents and Seeni Movula's House Asanisai Pillai, Syedammal Amabalam

Pallivasal and Road running East west

7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent / legal heirs of the defendant, Raja Asari does not appear to

have conveyed what he got under Ex.A5, when he executed Ex.A4-sale

deed. The learned counsel points out that while in Ex.A5, the northern

boundaries is shown as Thangammal Kollai land and Kuppammal Veetu

Kollai and the western boundaries is shown as road and Seeni Movula's

House, in Ex.A4, Thangammal Kollai Land becomes western boundary.

Thus, Raja Asari obviously did not have title to convey what was sold under

Ex.A4-sale deed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.No.1006 of 2000

8. The case of the plaintiff is anchored only on Ex.A4-sale deed. The

first appellate Court, after carefully going through the various documents,

had correctly found that the subject matter of the property obtained vide

Ex.A5 and what was conveyed under Ex.A4 do not tally. In this view of the

matter, the decision of the trial Court was reversed and the appeal filed by

the defendant was allowed. The said decision does not call for any

interference. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

respondents, no substantial question of law really arises for consideration.